Not too many gun-owners seem suprised when informed of Rudy Guliani's anti-gun record...

"...Giuliani sued gun makers and distributors, backed a federal assault weapons ban and once described the NRA as extremist..."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/giuliani_ap_interview/2007/09/25/35598.html

It raises a few more eyebrows to learn that just a few years ago (2004), Mitt Romney signed an "Assault Weapons Ban" in Massachusetts.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

But what does seem to surprise many, perhaps because of his reputation as a "War Hero", is how Arizona Senator John McCain has been one of the Second Amendment's most active enemies and worst threats. For example, he was NRA's nemisis as recent as 2001, pushing "Gun Show Loophole" (sic) legislation that would have ended gun shows in America.
http://nrawinningteam.com/0102/gunshowbill.html

Well they are the only top dogs, with Huckabee standing a decent pro-2nd ground, but no one likes him, because he goes to church. :rolleyes:

We're gonna get an Anti-Gun president one way or the other.

Rob P.

01-22-2008, 4:23 PM

The thing about Romney is interesting.

As gov he had an obligation to sign legislation which was passed by the State's legislators. Most bills are passed due to public need (not all, but most).

so, when Romney signed the AW bill in Mass, was he signing something HE authored and introduced or something that the Mass public wanted? IF it was a "the public wants it" sort of thing then he was just doing his job and it might not be personal belief.

He could be telling the truth. (Ok, he's a politician, he lies for a living I get that, but....)

mikehaas

01-22-2008, 4:39 PM

The thing about Romney is interesting.

As gov he had an obligation to sign legislation which was passed by the State's legislators. Most bills are passed due to public need (not all, but most).

so, when Romney signed the AW bill in Mass, was he signing something HE authored and introduced or something that the Mass public wanted? IF it was a "the public wants it" sort of thing then he was just doing his job and it might not be personal belief.

He could be telling the truth. (Ok, he's a politician, he lies for a living I get that, but....)
Telling the truth? It seems he clearly expresses his opinion at the link above.

Remember the context - the original Massachussetts AWB expired in 2004. The above link reports on the the signing ceremony where Romney made it permanent, stating...

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmenís groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Does that sound like an arm being twisted to you?

FreedomIsNotFree

01-22-2008, 4:47 PM

The Republicans absolutely CAN NOT nominate McCain. He's openly supported amnesty and is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment. If he is nominated it sends the message that those issues, which I believe most conservatives have strong feelings on, simply aren't that important at the end of the day. This has huge implications even if the eventual Republican nominee loses.

McCain must NOT be the Republican nominee.

hawk1

01-22-2008, 4:54 PM

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

:puke:

troyus

01-22-2008, 5:07 PM

The Republicans absolutely CAN NOT nominate McCain. He's openly supported amnesty and is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment. If he is nominated it sends the message that those issues, which I believe most conservatives have strong feelings on, simply aren't that important at the end of the day. This has huge implications even if the eventual Republican nominee loses.

McCain must NOT be the Republican nominee.

The only difference on this issue vs. Romney is that McCain isn't totally lying to you about it. :rolleyes:

mikehaas

01-22-2008, 5:08 PM

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

:puke:

You convinced me - I won't vote for George W. again.

hawk1

01-22-2008, 5:24 PM

You convinced me - I won't vote for George W. again.

You missed my point Mike. Or maybe you didn't?...

btw, I won't vote for him again either. :p

mikehaas

01-22-2008, 5:51 PM

You missed my point Mike. Or maybe you didn't?...

btw, I won't vote for him again either. :p
No I understood your post, I think. Mine was not entirely flippantly made.

Let's remember that George W's comments were made in the context of a Presidential campaign. And now we see Guliani, McCain and Romney all making PRO-GUN statements in the context of a Presidential campaign.

I suspect both of us strongly agree that statements made in the context of a Presidential campaign often have severe credibility problems.

You may have quoted George W accurately and he may have been lying. Evidence that the AW Ban expired on his watch and I never heard of his administration lifting a finger to keep it alive. We're not complaining about that, are we?

So, I agree - if Bush said that during his campaign, it would seem to have been an untruth (thankfully). Now, fast forwarding to the ever-relevant present, I suggest that if McCain, Guliani or Romney becomes President, and that person proves to be just as disingeniuos in his PRO-GUN statements made in the context of a Presidential campaign, we will not be so fat and satisfied in the outcome.

I also suggest that the comments and links above showing anti-gun bias were NOT simple statements made in the context of a Presidential campaign, but actions performed in their actual governance duties by the individuals noted. They ALL have walked the anti-gun walk (not just talked the talk).

And we haven't even TALKED about W's Supreme Court Justice appointments - the only reason Heller actually has a screaming chance in hell. Which of course, brings up future Supreme Court Justice appointments. What if one of the 3 above becomes our BEST vote, considering THAT little gut-wrencher?

Watching sausage being made really doesn't hold a candle to politics, when you think about it.

Wulf

01-22-2008, 5:57 PM

Well they are the only top dogs, with Huckabee standing a decent pro-2nd ground, but no one likes him, because he goes to church. :rolleyes:

I dont like him because the democrats will tee him up like a Titleist in the general election. That plus I'm convinced that having been a governor of a small southern deliverance state is an anti-qualification for the presidency.

Josh3239

01-22-2008, 5:58 PM

The Republicans absolutely CAN NOT nominate McCain. He's openly supported amnesty and is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment. If he is nominated it sends the message that those issues, which I believe most conservatives have strong feelings on, simply aren't that important at the end of the day. This has huge implications even if the eventual Republican nominee loses.

McCain must NOT be the Republican nominee.

I am pretty sure McCain voted against the Clinton AW ban. Besides closing the gun show loophole what other anti-gun baggage does McCain come with?

As far as I am concerned, Romney banned large amounts of guns as governor and Rudy is pretty obvoius. Besides Huckabee and Paul who is more pro-2A (and left standing) than McCain?

M. Sage

01-22-2008, 6:13 PM

The thing about Romney is interesting.

As gov he had an obligation to sign legislation which was passed by the State's legislators. Most bills are passed due to public need (not all, but most).

so, when Romney signed the AW bill in Mass, was he signing something HE authored and introduced or something that the Mass public wanted? IF it was a "the public wants it" sort of thing then he was just doing his job and it might not be personal belief.

He could be telling the truth. (Ok, he's a politician, he lies for a living I get that, but....)

Just because "the public wants it" doesn't mean it should be passed and signed into law. There's a reason the Founders structured our country as something other than a true Democracy, after all. If it's a governor's responsibility to sign legislation passed by the legislature, then why do they have veto powers? Why would we have governors at all, in that case?

That legislation obviously violated people's rights (ok, not so obvious to the antis, but they're not very bright), and protecting the rights of his constituents was his real job as governor.

I'm sorry, but what you just said is that if 51% of the people in CA support a total ban on firearms, and 51% of the legislature does, too, then the governor MUST sign the ban into law, and it a just and reasonable to do so.

hawk1

01-22-2008, 6:23 PM

...I suspect both of us strongly agree that statements made in the context of a Presidential campaign often have severe credibility problems...

That we agree on.

Hence Guliani dying a slow death as more of his past quotes on anything from firearms to illegal aliens comes back to bite him in the *****.

AngelDecoys

01-22-2008, 6:37 PM

I am pretty sure McCain voted against the Clinton AW ban. Besides closing the gun show loophole what other anti-gun baggage does McCain come with?

McCain proposed the campaign finance reform that the NRA later fought to have thrown out.

Guliani sued the gun companies on behalf of NY in 1995.

Paul has an A+ from the NRA (though he doesn't own any firearms himself). Only one of the bunch rated a B+ or above as far as I know.

BTW - If you get really bored here's a site to shoot paintballs at your least favorite candidate.
http://www.miniclip.com/games/presidential-paintball/en/

Wulf

01-22-2008, 7:56 PM

I am pretty sure McCain voted against the Clinton AW ban. Besides closing the gun show loophole what other anti-gun baggage does McCain come with?

As far as I am concerned, Romney banned large amounts of guns as governor and Rudy is pretty obvoius. Besides Huckabee and Paul who is more pro-2A (and left standing) than McCain?

McCain cut the 1st amendment pretty deep with McCain Feingold. Why do you think he'd hold the line on the 2nd?

Josh3239

01-22-2008, 8:45 PM

McCain cut the 1st amendment pretty deep with McCain Feingold. Why do you think he'd hold the line on the 2nd?

Because...

He voted against the Brady Bill
He voted against the Clinton AW ban.
He voted yes on prohibiting and banning lawsuits against gun manufactuers for gun violence.
He voted yes on loosening background checks and liscencing at gun shows.
He voted against banning "armor piercing ammo".
On his website he states that he is against an Assault Weapons ban or any type of ban on ammunition.
He supports CCW.

Still haven't heard why he is so anti-gun. Yes, he said he'd be open to an AW Ban depending on the details. But apparently the Clinton AW ban was uncostitutional to him, I don't know why but he voted against it. With McCain as President I don't see any guns that Californians can own being banned and I doubt most guns in free states will be banned with McCain as President.

He is defenitly not my first choice but I still see no reason to call him anti-gun. Although I won't be offended if someone proves me otherwise.

Wulf

01-22-2008, 10:16 PM

If he cast those votes based on political expediency rather that principled support of the constitution you're not buying a lot of protection vs. Hillary.

FreedomIsNotFree

01-22-2008, 10:36 PM

In retrospect, I must admit that after looking deeper, McCain is not as hostile towards the 2nd Amendment as I had previously believed. That said, his position on amnesty still supports my position. If he is the nominee, people will think Americans, conservatives in particularly, are not serious about dealing with illegal immigration.

deldgeetar

01-22-2008, 10:53 PM

Well they are the only top dogs, with Huckabee standing a decent pro-2nd ground, but no one likes him, because he goes to church. :rolleyes:

We're gonna get an Anti-Gun president one way or the other.

People don't like Huckabee because he raises taxes and then lies about it. He welcomes illegal immigrants into this country and then lies about it. He has the same hippy-dippy liberal Christian views that Jimmy Carter does. I don't think people care about him "going to church.":rolleyes:

deldgeetar

01-22-2008, 10:56 PM

The only decent candidate we had, Fred Thompson, dropped out today. I'm sorry to all the Ron Paul fans out there, but really:

GET A CLUE!!!! YOUR CANDIDATE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE!!!!!

So what are we to do? I refuse to vote for Guliani, McCain, or Huckabee. Romney looks better but his past 2nd Amendment positions are troubling. I really am at a loss as to who I will vote for.

vinny_land

01-22-2008, 11:10 PM

Romney and McCain look like the two to go at it but im worried Romney might screw us if he gets into office.

secretasianman

01-22-2008, 11:12 PM

I really am at a loss as to who I will vote for.

Since this is a two party system: Your two remaining choices are Hillary or Obama.

Ron Paul is my first choice... unfortunately the Republican establishment dislikes him it seems based mostly on his foreign affairs view.

The more I've read about McCain, the more I'm inclined to vote for him. Since this is a firearms forum: His voting record in regards to the 2nd Ammendment places him at the top compared to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani.

M. Sage

01-22-2008, 11:14 PM

Since this is a two party system: Your two remaining choices are Hillary or Obama.

Technically, it's not. It's just that the two biggest parties really want us to believe it is...

RRangel

01-22-2008, 11:30 PM

Good post. This is very true. Is it my imagination or do I notice that McCain seems like the media's darling?

pullnshoot25

01-22-2008, 11:39 PM

This video should clarify some things about Romney. The guy questioning Romney is actually my older brother, Sam.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0

Wulf

01-23-2008, 6:52 AM

In retrospect, I must admit that after looking deeper, McCain is not as hostile towards the 2nd Amendment as I had previously believed. That said, his position on amnesty still supports my position. If he is the nominee, people will think Americans, conservatives in particularly, are not serious about dealing with illegal immigration.

Its also important to remember that Presidents dont make gun law. Congress makes the law and the courts bless it.

So, WRT to McCain, lets not forget the "Gang of 14" that McCain organized to screw Bush on judicial picks.

John has time and time again proven himself to be too much a politician, willing to put anything on the table, to achieve a end that makes him look good.

CCWFacts

01-23-2008, 6:58 AM

My strategy: I'll vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. If he wins it (doubtful) I'll vote for him in the general. Otherwise I'll vote Libertarian. Reason: 100% of California's electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. The only thing I can do with my vote is "send a message" because California is, at this point, an absolutely safe Democratic state, so concerns about wasting my vote etc don't really matter to me.

If the race were close in this state, things would be different, but they're not, and it's winner-takes-all-electoral-votes.

mblat

01-23-2008, 8:51 AM

My strategy: I'll vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. If he wins it (doubtful) I'll vote for him in the general. Otherwise I'll vote Libertarian. Reason: 100% of California's electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. The only thing I can do with my vote is "send a message" because California is, at this point, an absolutely safe Democratic state, so concerns about wasting my vote etc don't really matter to me.

If the race were close in this state, things would be different, but they're not, and it's winner-takes-all-electoral-votes.

I am not sure if CA would be safe democratic state if Guilini or McCain will win nomination. Guliani in particular.
If Hackabee is nominated then of cause.....

yellowfin

01-24-2008, 1:37 PM

Since this is a firearms forum: His voting record in regards to the 2nd Ammendment places him at the top compared to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Perhaps true, but only because ANYONE can beat Romney and Guiliani on their 2nd Amendment records because both are HORRIBLE. It's like saying that hangliding with an umbrella is safer than being on the Hindenburg.

Paladin

01-24-2008, 11:32 PM

Mike,

How is Newt re the 2nd A RKBA?

I've often thought one of the worse mistakes made by the Repubs this year was Newt saying he wouldn't run if Fred did. Fred entered the race, so Newt stayed out. But Fred never seemed like he was competing for the most powerful office in this nation and perhaps the world.

Now we're in a mess. With probably 3 SCOTUS seats -- not to mention a huge backlog of fed appeals cts seats -- to be filled by the next president, we pro-RKBA should be shaking in our boots.

IMO, Newt was the only candidate that could: (1) unite both wings of the Repub party; (2) win the convention; (3) go toe-to-toe against Hillary/BO; and (4) win in the general election.

Time to knock the dust off of: http://www.draftnewt.org/ ?

Could Newt rescue the pro-RKBA cause by being drafted at the Repub convention? If he's got a good RKBA record (I couldn't find much re it at that website), I hope the NRA leadership thinks about suggesting this to the RNC "powers-that-be."

Hillbillly

01-24-2008, 11:46 PM

My strategy: I'll vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. If he wins it (doubtful) I'll vote for him in the general. Otherwise I'll vote Libertarian. Reason: 100% of California's electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. The only thing I can do with my vote is "send a message" because California is, at this point, an absolutely safe Democratic state, so concerns about wasting my vote etc don't really matter to me.

If the race were close in this state, things would be different, but they're not, and it's winner-takes-all-electoral-votes.

I like the way you think, You are so right our California Republican vote doesn't matter at all another way the Powers that Be can manipulate the system. Take a look at my long opinion on this also.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83894

SemiAutoSam

01-25-2008, 12:04 AM

People DO forget and over generations they forget even more.

What has happened 2, 3, 4, Generations ago is not heard about and most likely never was. IE Did your grans father tell you about when DFR stole his gold ?

Hell no mine didn't either but it was a major injustice in 1933.

Will you tell your children about the 1968 GCA or the 1986 FOPA ? No you will have forgotten about it by the time something like this will be useful to tell about.

Read this and then think about it will this fit any of our profiles ?

Which character in this story will you be ? And your son or daughter ?

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/sundown.html

Sorry for the rant but If people dont forget things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. And things are very bad in the over all scheme of things looking at things over time not just a snapshot of the last 5 or 10 years but over the last 100 to 150 years things are horrible in respect to the freedoms we have lost.

People don't forget, but is is good to remind.....

Paladin

01-25-2008, 12:07 AM

My strategy: I'll vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. If he wins it (doubtful) I'll vote for him in the general. Otherwise I'll vote Libertarian. Reason: 100% of California's electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. The only thing I can do with my vote is "send a message" because California is, at this point, an absolutely safe Democratic state, so concerns about wasting my vote etc don't really matter to me.

If the race were close in this state, things would be different, but they're not, and it's winner-takes-all-electoral-votes.PM sent.

retired

01-25-2008, 12:31 AM

Paladin, you might want to check out this link to Gingrich's views on the 2A.

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Newt_Gingrich_Gun_Control.htm

Actually, if one wants to get detailed info on any of the candidates and those who were or might be, go to ontheissues.org and just select the one you want. This sight, for those who are not aware of it, has a lot of good info and it is broken down issue by issue for clarity of reading.

mikehaas

01-25-2008, 2:59 AM

Mike,

How is Newt re the 2nd A RKBA?

...Could Newt rescue the pro-RKBA cause by being drafted at the Repub convention? If he's got a good RKBA record (I couldn't find much re it at that website), I hope the NRA leadership thinks about suggesting this to the RNC "powers-that-be."
Y'know, I don't recall Newt abusing gun-rights in any way but my life as an NRA volunteer actually began in Jan '96 and man, I didn't know ANYTHING. Dumb as dirt. I should start a thread sometime about the dumb stuff I've wanted to do (but didn't.) Anyway, Newt became speaker in '94 as architect of the "Contract with America" but after Clinton was re-elected in '96 and the GOP lost seats in '98, Newt stepped down. I was just getting my footing when he was suddenly gone (not that I'm that stable now).

Now, IMO this is important as many "party animals" either have forgetten it or never thought of it - the "R" in "NRA" doesn't stand for Republican. NRA may not get involved in the primaries or do it quietly. Those are largely 'party' processes and NRA is not Democrat or Republican (we here very much need Democrat support to win ANYTHING in Sacramento - with every single vote in every single committee.). Of course, I strongly suspect that *IF* NRA endorses a candidate in the general, it will be a Republican (big surprise, eh?). But honestly, with the field of Republicans that seem to be frontrunners... no, I'm sure not going to try to suggest what NRA might or should do. I think a lot of folks that make predictions this election will enjoy egg on their facial features.

This much I know - I've seen it many times - NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) will look at the entire political scene with intensity and make ratings and endorsements that gives NRA the best chance of success. You can take that to the bank!

I don't think anyone should think that NRA - or anybody else - can save the GOP from themselves. Just witness California - in 1996 a Republican governorand a GOP majority in the Assembly. In 1998, the GOP lost the Assembly and in 2000, they lost the governor seat. That's a slide from power that rivals the descent of the proverbial "lead balloon"... total flame-out.

But they DID answer a question that was brewing in political circles back then - Could the CA GOP even get a Mega-SuperStar elected to office? Turns out they weren't that bad, YET. (But after Ahhnold, who knows?)

NRA has many members that are Democrats and we want them, as well as Republicans, Libertarians, Green Partyers, Peace & Freedomers, Pilots, Plumbers, Tinkers, Tailors... to stay NRA members, too, right? Gun-rights is not a party-line issue and we play into our enemy's hands when we fall into that trap.

Paladin

01-25-2008, 11:04 AM

but my life as an NRA volunteer actually began in Jan '96 and man, I didn't know ANYTHING. Dumb as dirt. I should start a thread sometime about the dumb stuff I've wanted to do (but didn't.)I'm sure many of us feel the same way about ourselves. :o Remembering that should help us be patient w/the newbies to CGN, even if we're dealing with the same issue for the 100th time (e.g., "the NRA does NOTHING in PRK except take our money! ! !" or "I've got a GREAT IDEA: let's get an initiative going to (pick one: pass a CA RKBA con amendment/repeal the AWB/ pass "Shall Issue")! ! !").

Now, IMO this is important as many "party animals" either have forgetten it or never thought of it - the "R" in "NRA" doesn't stand for Republican. NRA may not get involved in the primaries or do it quietly. Those are largely 'party' processes and NRA is not Democrat or Republican <snip>. Of course, I strongly suspect that *IF* NRA endorses a candidate in the general, it will be a Republican (big surprise, eh?).Right. That's why I suggested the RNC. If the NRA approached the DNC and said, "We don't really see any candidates that we could endorse," the senior Dem leadership would say nothing and just smile a very sinister smile. But honestly, with the field of Republicans that seem to be frontrunners... no, I'm sure not going to try to suggest what NRA might or should do.As Darth Vader once said, "Leave that to me." ;)

I don't think anyone should think that NRA - or anybody else - can save the GOP from themselves.Right. I was looking to "save" our cause, not the Repub party. Sure, more pro-RKBA Dems and Repubs in the House and Senate are always good, but there are some things that only a pro-RKBA president can do (e.g., pick SCOTUS and fed appeals ct nominees; set the agenda for the DOJ, BATFE; sign Executive (and other) Orders and put in place things dealing w/foreign affairs that ultimately could undermine our sovereignty and thereby our 2nd A RKBA; etc.).

NRA has many members that are Democrats and we want them, as well as Republicans, Libertarians, Green Partyers, Peace & Freedomers, Pilots, Plumbers, Tinkers, Tailors... to stay NRA members, too, right? Gun-rights is not a party-line issue and we play into our enemy's hands when we fall into that trap.Right. But, like it or not, of the two major parties, the Repubs are in general more pro-RKBA than the Dems. True, the Dems ran and won w/a bunch of pro-RKBA candidates in '06 and God bless 'em. But, IMO, the senior leadership of the Dems is the "Old Guard" (like Hillary, Schumner, Kennedy, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc.) who are hardcore antis, but have learned (by loosing elections) to keep their mouths shut when campaigning. Purging the Dem party of the "Old Guard" leaders and mentality will take a decade or two of consistent losses to pro-RKBA Dems in primaries or pro-RKBA Repubs in general elections.

The Repub leadership, IMO, is divided between those who will give lip-service to RKBA and those who truly believe in the RKBA.

Paladin

01-25-2008, 11:06 AM

Paladin, you might want to check out this link to Gingrich's views on the 2A.

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Newt_Gingrich_Gun_Control.htm

Actually, if one wants to get detailed info on any of the candidates and those who were or might be, go to ontheissues.org and just select the one you want. This sight, for those who are not aware of it, has a lot of good info and it is broken down issue by issue for clarity of reading.Thanks. Newt sounds good. Too bad it does not list his votes (if any) on the issue.

What was surprising to me was that they state that Rush Limbaugh has not taken a position re the 2nd A RKBA. I find that truly surprising given that his show has "Open Line Friday's" where the callers choose the topics. I find it hard to believe that post-Columbine and post VA Tech, Rush slipped by w/o taking a stand one way or the other.

donger

01-25-2008, 5:26 PM

I don't know why everybody is getting so worked up, but a democrat will be in the White House next year.

Josh3239

01-25-2008, 5:59 PM

I don't believe that. If the nominations go to Clinton and McCain, I think that McCain can win. Hellary is terrible at debates and an overall terrible person. She has a strong base of supporters that will support her no matter what happens, but right now Obama is making her look silly at debates and she will probably still win. McCain will pull in conservatives of all levels as well as independents and probably the small group of democrats who despise Hellary. McCain is so center of the road that I think that the only people Hellary will win are mostly woman and hardcore democrats.

Paladin

01-31-2008, 9:32 PM

Mike,

How is Newt re the 2nd A RKBA?

I've often thought one of the worse mistakes made by the Repubs this year was Newt saying he wouldn't run if Fred did. Fred entered the race, so Newt stayed out. But Fred never seemed like he was competing for the most powerful office in this nation and perhaps the world.

Now we're in a mess. With probably 3 SCOTUS seats -- not to mention a huge backlog of fed appeals cts seats -- to be filled by the next president, we pro-RKBA should be shaking in our boots.

IMO, Newt was the only candidate that could: (1) unite both wings of the Repub party; (2) win the convention; (3) go toe-to-toe against Hillary/BO; and (4) win in the general election.

Time to knock the dust off of: http://www.draftnewt.org/ ?

Could Newt rescue the pro-RKBA cause by being drafted at the Repub convention? If he's got a good RKBA record (I couldn't find much re it at that website), I hope the NRA leadership thinks about suggesting this to the RNC "powers-that-be."http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59971
WND Exclusive Commentary
A Bipartisan Call to Draft Newt Gingrich
Posted: January 31, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Perry Atkinson and Bob Just

If the primary season reveals no decisive front-runner, and if conservative delegates head toward the GOP convention with the nagging feeling that our best candidate wasn't in the race, we urge them to consider acting on what so many Republicans and Reagan Democrats are thinking. Drafting Newt Gingrich is a real solution to the current leadership problem. Even as a vice presidential choice, Gingrich would solidify the ranks and reinforce the GOP's position as the party of bold ideas, but as a presidential choice he could bring about a truly needed Second Reagan Revolution.

While the Democrats argue over campaign process but have little to contribute other than their usual 1960s "cultural revolution" and "old government" top-down dictates, there is one man who has not hesitated to be genuinely forward thinking. Not only is Newt Gingrich making impressive proposals at American Solutions.com that could unite the country in some positive ways, his track record in Congress during the 1980s and '90s can leave little doubt that Reaganism would get new life in a Gingrich White House.

Of course, the Reagan '80s are long gone, but as Gingrich recently told Rush Limbaugh, Reaganism itself is "not only not over, it is timeless, it is enduring and it is the core organizing principles for a successful country." To that, traditional Americans emphatically say, Amen.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's famous anti-Soviet "evil empire" speech, it's a good time to point out that Reagan also cautioned us against overreaching government power here in the United States, especially in its modern secular form. Still with us today, federal secularism back in 1983 had even then long since rejected what Christian Americans including Reagan called "the rule of law under God."

"Now, I don't have to tell you," Reagan told the National Association of Evangelicals, "that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation."

Sound familiar? Just listen to the Democrat candidates – listen past the warm and fuzzy rhetoric and you'll hear the words, "government rule and regulation." Make no mistake, Ronald Reagan's struggle continues. There's a reason why a prominent conservative like Sean Hannity increasingly asks his national radio and television audience to consider a simple question – "What would Reagan do?" – and why Heritage Foundation has joined him in that effort. There's a reason Rush Limbaugh reinforces Reaganism at every opportunity. It's about America, and who we really are as a people in relation to the government we created.

As speaker of the House, and for his entire political career, Newt Gingrich has faithfully resisted what Reagan called "the cult of the state." He shares Reagan's staunch belief in the creativity of individual Americans and in our innate ability as a free people to come up with solutions that secular government bureaucracy couldn't even see much less implement. This unwavering "under God" Americanism is a key to understanding both men.

No, Reaganism itself will never die, and Newt Gingrich is the man who most represents those core conservative principles, not only in his original thinking, but in his political track record, and most importantly in his irrepressible determination to act out those "tried and time-tested values" with real solutions for 21st century America. Traditional Democrats and Republicans are looking for someone who "gets it." We believe that man is Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

Nodda Duma

01-31-2008, 10:11 PM

I don't follow news much, but the few times I have, and the even fewer times that I've seen something on Newt Gingrich, he's always impressed me as a straight shooter. Down-to-earth guy who believes in America and tries to do his job rather than try to grab headlines.

Is that what others think or should I watch more news? :P

-Jason

Wulf

02-01-2008, 7:14 AM

I don't believe that. If the nominations go to Clinton and McCain, I think that McCain can win.

McCain doesn't stand a chance against Hillary. He's a very OLD very very WHITE MAN; Hillary is already facing a stiff battle against a younger hipper Barak. I dont think the electorate will be able to leap as far as a grumpy old man. McCain's the one republican candidate that she can beat. Why do you think the NYT supports him in the republican primaries? Why do you think the media advances McCain as the front runner when he's barely in the lead, very early in the race? Its because 98% of them are Dems and they dont want the Republicans to well represented in the race. That should give you huge pause. You shouldent take advice from the enemy.

Additionally, McCain is the only candidate with the kind of abrasive personality that nullifies the disadvantage Hillary suffers from her lack of charisma.

Besides, even if you do get McCain elected what have you won.....virtually nothing. There's so little difference between McCain and the mainstream Democrats its hardly worth talking about. If McCain gets the nomination we will have made a huge step from a 2 party system to a 1.5 party system.

Ann Coulter said it best:
I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

SecondAmendmentgirl

02-01-2008, 7:34 AM

The Republicans absolutely CAN NOT nominate McCain. He's openly supported amnesty and is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment. If he is nominated it sends the message that those issues, which I believe most conservatives have strong feelings on, simply aren't that important at the end of the day. This has huge implications even if the eventual Republican nominee loses.

McCain must NOT be the Republican nominee.

I believe not but a couple months ago, at the NRA conference, he boldly proclaimed that none of the candidates could match his solid 2A track record and got something of an applause after Giuliani got a luke warm response.